Monterey's Naval Postgraduate School put research over military instruction, report says

A 2008 strategic plan aimed at establishing the Naval Postgraduate School as a top research institution is largely responsible for what a naval investigation report suggested was a shift in focus from naval officer instruction to reimbursable research. The plan also led to an alleged failure by its leaders and faculty to adhere to a number of Navy rules, polices and federal laws, the report said.

But NPS backers, faculty and others insisted the Monterey school was successfully meeting a key part of its mission by producing the highest quality research of crucial benefit to the military and national security.

According to a Naval Inspector General's report released Tuesday, the strategic plan's focus on elevating the school's status as a research institute capable of competing with leading civilian universities was "commendable and should not be discouraged," but was "not properly executed."

While the 129-page report praised the school's ability to offer "cutting edge solutions" to the naval community and national security, and said NPS had a "solid institutional culture of academic integrity," it was unsparing in its criticism of the school's practices.

The report suggested the school's focus had shifted too much toward outside research and program funding at the expense of its core mission of educating naval officers and other key military personnel, and of following the rules.

Total sponsored program funding doubled and research funding tripled from 2007-10 while "mission" funding from military sources remained stable or declined, the report said. By 2010, mission funding from the Navy and Department of Defense represented only about half the school's budget.

Last year, the school reported raising $214 million in research grant funding, tops among local research institutions.

The boost in research and sponsored program funding occurred after the school's faculty expanded from 197 to 541 from 2001-07, which was not matched by a correlated increase in mission funding, according to the report.

Monterey City Manager Fred Meurer, a retired Army colonel, agreed NPS was focusing efforts on reimbursable research in an attempt to "make Navy dollars and DOD dollars go further."

Meurer said he didn't "think anything was wrong with that" approach as long as the school kept its focus on improving military readiness and "preparing for the war of tomorrow."

According to the report, the focus on research funding and positions also fostered an environment where school leaders and faculty believed NPS could no longer "operate as a Navy command" and adhere to Navy rules because doing so would be "in direct conflict" with the business practices necessary for operating a university. It noted a "pervasive belief throughout NPS faculty" that academic research and collaboration would suffer from a "strict interpretation of national security policy and procedures."

The report blamed the switch to civilian leadership at the military school in the mid-2000s for allowing civilian academic leaders and tenured professors to assert control over the school. That diminished the influence of a considerably smaller military faculty and staff, including Navy legal counsel and inspector general representatives, and created tension as a result, the report said.

A "culture of non-compliance" with Navy and federal guidelines had been "abetted by the current leadership," the report said, leading to a number of alleged and potential operational and legal deficiencies.

Leaders dismissed

In the wake of the inspector general's yearlong investigation and a command inspection in June, Navy Secretary Bob Work removed NPS's president, retired Vice Adm. Dan Oliver — the first civilian to lead the school in its 61-year history — and Provost Leonard Ferrari. Oliver was allowed to resign and Ferrari, while stripped of his provost title, was placed on administrative leave.

Work appointed interim replacements and established a working group charged with implementing the report's recommendations.

In a statement on behalf of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Pentagon press secretary George Little said, "Secretary Panetta believes strongly in the mission of the Naval Postgraduate School, which is a vital part of the Monterey — and the U.S. military — community. As a lifelong Monterey resident, he's seen over many years the outstanding contributions the school has made to the area and to the country. He's confident that this important institution will implement, as appropriate, the recommendations outlined in the recent reports and seamlessly transition beyond the events of recent days."

NPS Foundation Chairman Harry Mauz, a retired four-star admiral and former NPS student, defended both Oliver and Ferrari as "people of towering integrity." He said they had much to do with the school's unassailable success in gaining reimbursable research funding and producing results that benefited uniformed military and Department of Defense personnel.

Mauz agreed the school's direction had changed "a bit," but in an entirely positive manner. He said he thought the inspector general's investigation was an "over-reach" that "threw two fine people under the bus" for what he suggested were largely "procedural errors" and "unwitting" mistakes.

NPS professor Casey Lucius, who teaches for the U.S. Naval War College on campus, which was not included in the investigation, said she had read the report and agreed it suggested that research had overshadowed instruction. While Lucius said she believed NPS research helps improve the military and the school, she added, "I think the faculty needs to remember the students come first: They're why we're here, and the real emphasis needs to be on the students."

NPS authority

According to the report, the school's primary statutory function is to "provide advanced instruction, professional and technical education, and research opportunities for commissioned officers of the naval service."

But the report suggested that NPS had shifted its focus away from that mission by offering instruction to a range of other students — such as civilian employees both inside and outside the Department of Defense, including foreign military students as part of an exchange program — and seeking reimbursement from outside organizations without fully established statutory authority.

The report suggested NPS had further stretched its statutory authority by including civilians in other federal agencies, including civilian foreign defense agency personnel, and non-federal civilian personnel from programs such as SMART and Cyber Corps.

In addition, the report noted a debate over the legal authority to charge fees or seek reimbursement from various agencies outside the Department of Defense, including defense industry contractors.

Pursuit of funding

Meanwhile, according to the report, a perception arose that students would have to "work hard at it" to fail or not graduate from NPS, which has a 98 percent graduation rate, leading students and faculty to refer to the school as a "pump and not a filter."

The school's strategic plan chose 15 top civilian research universities, such as MIT, Caltech and Stanford, as peers for benchmark comparisons in an attempt to become a "naval/defense oriented research university" that also provided graduate education, the report said.

The deans and faculty of NPS's four schools emphasized research as their primary function and "only mentioned student research as an afterthought," the report said. The deans served in a "business development" capacity aimed at meeting payroll and other costs, according to the report, while faculty were "encouraged and evaluated" for the ability to find sponsors to fund faculty research efforts.

"In the coming era of fiscal restraint, our opinion/view is there is some risk in pursuit of reimbursable funding," the report said, adding that it is unclear whether NPS has the authority to seek private-sector funding.

The pursuit of funding, the report found, included a "loose arrangement" with sponsors involving "minimal paperwork." That resulted in an inadequate review of potential safety hazards and a failure to follow Navy and federal protocols, the report said.

As examples, the report pointed to the crash of a $35,000 electric helicopter by NPS researchers during field experiments at Camp Roberts and the temporary shutdown of a free-electron laser program at NPS because of noncompliance with radiation safety rules.

Military sidelined

A largely civilian academic leadership and faculty asserted control over the school through committees and voting procedures while "systematically" sidelining military instructors and staff, as well as "compliance-minded" civilians, the report found, describing them as "hostile" to the rules.

Navy legal counsel and inspector general personnel were dismissed as "impediments," according to the report, and their offices were moved away from central locations and replaced by the school's foundation and a prayer room. The school's academic leaders and faculty expressed the opinion that "academic freedom" would be threatened by "rigorous application of security considerations," the report found.

The report suggested there was a risk of compromising critical information because of an inadequate review process for classification in a school with a number of foreign students and faculty with links to foreign military.

In addition to its findings, the report included 88 recommendations aimed at getting the school into compliance with Navy rules and federal law.

Oliver and Ferrari were replaced by interim president Rear Adm. Jan Tighe and acting provost Dr. Douglas Moses, and the working group is being led by Assistant Navy Secretary Juan Garcia.

While sources have suggested NPS faculty may resist new restrictions, particularly with regard to research, Navy Undersecretary Work apparently sought to allay some of those concerns during his visit last week.

Foundation Chairman Mauz said he had been told Work was asked during a meeting with faculty if research would be curtailed as a result of the report and its recommendations, and the undersecretary replied that research would continue and perhaps even grow.